A class isn't inherently evil, what one does with the tools could be but just knowing/learning the abilities isn't. They might make some uncomfortable sure but at the same time look at many of the classes and I could see people being uneasy with them. A wizard is a walking WMD that can rain fiery/icy/arcane death at a moments notice and bring about all sorts of horrific calamity or a rogue that can gut and/or poison people then disappear right before your eyes, etc.

A class isn't inherently evil, what one does with the tools could be but just knowing/learning the abilities isn't.

But they can be inherently good? (Paladin)I also don't see how necromancy or enslavement (pet classes) aren't inherently evil... (The arguement as to why Archai aren't summoners).

I gave up on using lore to define race/class combos because every reason can be argued with logic or by their own lore (Paladins were once Clerics turned martial, yet Dark Myr can be Clerics and Warriors, but not Paladins...). I decided that the devs made their decisions based on balance/expected popularity. i.e. if Ogres or Dark Myr could be Paladins or if Dire Lords wore plate armor, they would likely be highly populated classes. Also why the Bard and Necro are coming to the game late (they were the two most popular classes played).

With that said, to answer the O.P., evil humans (SK and Nec) in EQ had to hide their beliefs/religion by training in the sewers or aqueducts of the human cities. So I would assume that a Human DL in PRotF may not be able to roam freely in most cities until they improve their faction.

Nothing says any are inherently good either (Cleric/Paladin). Just like some religious people in the real world and throughout history, there are those that are lead down darker paths of zealotry/fanaticism while at the same time think their cause is righteous or their path is blessed.

A class isn't inherently evil, what one does with the tools could be but just knowing/learning the abilities isn't.

With that said, to answer the O.P., evil humans (SK and Nec) in EQ had to hide their beliefs/religion by training in the sewers or aqueducts of the human cities. So I would assume that a Human DL in PRotF may not be able to roam freely in most cities until they improve their faction.

This could explain to me, how human Dire Lord could be present in Thronefast, thanks. That would be a very interesting experience to exploring the starting area, a lot different then most humans starting in that region. fingers crossed

I personally wouldn't mind a more ambiguous approach to the Dire Lord's identity. Certaintly, the 'easy' path would just be being evil, but fear itself is a powerful tool that can be justly used in the right hands.

Nothing says any are inherently good either (Cleric/Paladin). Just like some religious people in the real world and throughout history, there are those that are lead down darker paths of zealotry/fanaticism while at the same time think their cause is righteous or their path is blessed.

I said this in another post (I forget about what), but unless there is a single standard that everyone agrees on, good and evil are entirely subjective. In the dire lord's case, being able to manipulate blood isn't any more evil than a wizard calling forth fire or ice. To me, the dire lord does not look like the evil shadowknight from other games, including classic EQ. Being devoted to a deity, as clerics, paladins, possibly druids and shamans are does not guarantee goodness, it just means they're empowered by the deity they serve. It's what you do with that power and how it's received that determines it's goodness or evilness, and even that will be subjective across demographic groups.

A class isn't inherently evil, what one does with the tools could be but just knowing/learning the abilities isn't.

But they can be inherently good? (Paladin)I also don't see how necromancy or enslavement (pet classes) aren't inherently evil... (The arguement as to why Archai aren't summoners).

I gave up on using lore to define race/class combos because every reason can be argued with logic or by their own lore (Paladins were once Clerics turned martial, yet Dark Myr can be Clerics and Warriors, but not Paladins...). I decided that the devs made their decisions based on balance/expected popularity. i.e. if Ogres or Dark Myr could be Paladins or if Dire Lords wore plate armor, they would likely be highly populated classes. Also why the Bard and Necro are coming to the game late (they were the two most popular classes played).

With that said, to answer the O.P., evil humans (SK and Nec) in EQ had to hide their beliefs/religion by training in the sewers or aqueducts of the human cities. So I would assume that a Human DL in PRotF may not be able to roam freely in most cities until they improve their faction.

Perhaps it helps to think of it in terms of perceived morality rather than the individual's true morality. "Holy" people certainly can be evil. You can just look at the headlines and find however many examples you want to see. But people gerenerally assume that you're good if they know you're a priest or preacher (maybe less these days because of certain highly publicized events).

I think I am looking at it from the perspective of perceived morality... in particular from other people's perception (regardless of how the Dire Lord perceives "themselves"). Very few people would call themselves Evil or stupid or ugly (unless they're REALLY stupid, ugly or evil lol) but others may perceive them that way, making it so. "Perception is reality"

Some could call a rogue "evil" for stealing, while others may just say stealing is fine, some may call making someone's blood explode from their eyes evil, while others may say the target had it coming *shrug*. My point is that when a group of people "perceive" someone/something one way doesn't mean that person perceives themself that way. Like I've said numerous times, using the lore to explain the race/class combos is futile. Just don't get your hopes up too much if you are expecting humans to free roam evreywhere even in Thronefast depending on your class.

"One man's dream is another man's nightmare"A "Human Paladin" could be viewed as a "Dire Lord" by a Skar... Conquistadors were viewed as heros (Crusaders/Paladins) to the Spanish, but murdering bloodthirsty psychopaths (Dire Lords) in the eyes of the Aztecs. I really dislike the idea of certain races not beign allowed to be some of the classes (in particular races that can be clerics but not Paladins, and races that can be druids but not rangers).

add: And I know Paladins and Rangers are not "hybrids" but they have very similar tenets of spirituality/nature affinity that are combined with martial warfare.

"One man's dream is another man's nightmare"A "Human Paladin" could be viewed as a "Dire Lord" by a Skar... Conquistadors were viewed as heros (Crusaders/Paladins) to the Spanish, but murdering bloodthirsty psychopaths (Dire Lords) in the eyes of the Aztecs. I really dislike the idea of certain races not beign allowed to be some of the classes (in particular races that can be clerics but not Paladins, and races that can be druids but not rangers).

add: And I know Paladins and Rangers are not "hybrids" but they have very similar tenets of spirituality/nature affinity that are combined with martial warfare.

That's subjective alignment view, which is far from the usual RPG core using objective alignments. If you consider so, neither the direlord or paladins are different simply because they remain tied to the self perception of their race about their culture and habits.

If you choose the objetive PoV for alignment, then races are quite conscient of their own evilness, or goodness, and sort accordingly classes to their culture. Citing historical facts can't be an argument in fictive worlds where people definitely choose to be evil and can build up a society on that.

"One man's dream is another man's nightmare"A "Human Paladin" could be viewed as a "Dire Lord" by a Skar... Conquistadors were viewed as heros (Crusaders/Paladins) to the Spanish, but murdering bloodthirsty psychopaths (Dire Lords) in the eyes of the Aztecs. I really dislike the idea of certain races not beign allowed to be some of the classes (in particular races that can be clerics but not Paladins, and races that can be druids but not rangers).

add: And I know Paladins and Rangers are not "hybrids" but they have very similar tenets of spirituality/nature affinity that are combined with martial warfare.

That's subjective alignment view, which is far from the usual RPG core using objective alignments. If you consider so, neither the direlord or paladins are different simply because they remain tied to the self perception of their race about their culture and habits.

If you choose the objetive PoV for alignment, then races are quite conscient of their own evilness, or goodness, and sort accordingly classes to their culture. Citing historical facts can't be an argument in fictive worlds where people definitely choose to be evil and can build up a society on that.

I agree that "video game" RPGs hardcode alignments and that is fine... code needs to have boundaries and rules. My statement was geared more toward the lore being used to explain the class/race matrix as opposed to game code though.